The H. C. Nutting Co.

224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The H. C. Nutting Company and Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 9- CA-8729 July 17, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 4, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Thomas E. Bracken issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations. Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, The H. C. Nutting Compa- ny, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS E. BRACKEN, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on August 22, 1974,' by Local 415. The complaint was issued on October 31, and amend- ed on January 2, 1975. The complaint alleges that The H. C. Nutting Company, the Respondent herein, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denied that it engaged in conduct violative of the Act. Pur- suant to notice, the hearing was held before me in Cincin- nati, Ohio, on January 21, 22, and 23, 1975. Upon the entire record, including my careful observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due con- sideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following: ' All dates in 1974 unless otherwise indicated. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with its office in Cincinnati, Ohio, is engaged in the business of testing ma- terials and soils at its location in Cincinnati, and in the surrounding area of Ohio and Kentucky. During the 12- month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside of the State of Ohio. During the same period, Respondent's gross revenues exceeded $500,000. Based on the foregoing, and as is admitted by the Re- spondent, I find that the Respondent is engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The management personnel involved in this proceeding are Walter Williamson, manager of the Respondent's steel department; Carl Robert Lennertz, Respondent's chief en- gineer and a vice president; and Gregory Joseph Spieker, Respondent's general manager and secretary. Respondent admits the above-mentioned personnel are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Respondent's employees have never been represented by any labor organization. A. The Issues 1. Whether or not, through the conduct of Williamson in July, August, and September, Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Whether or not, through the conduct of Lennertz on or about August 12, Respondent engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the admitted discharge of Arthur Lloyd Denton on August 15. B. Description of the Respondent's Metal Testing Operations This case • involves the steel department (also called NDT-nondestructive testing department) of the Respon- dent. The major activities of the steel department are the taking of x-ray and gamma ray films of metal welds on construction sites and in metal fabrication plants of vari- ous customers . The purpose of the film is to show possible defects in the welded material. The x-ray and gamma ray films are taken (shot, in the parlance of the trade) by radiographers using a camera. The Respondent employed six radiographers and five 219 NLRB No. 75 H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 225 trainees in the summer of 1974. The Respondent conducts training programs and tests for employees to advance from radiographer trainee to a level one radiographer and then to a level two radiographer. The steel department also conducts visual welding in- spections by a magnetic particle test and by a dye pene- trant test. In addition , high tensile bolts on construction sites are also inspected. The daily routine of the department is activated by tele- phone calls, from customers who have welds to be inspect- ed, made to the department head, Williamson. Williamson takes their order, and schedules the work, usually for the next workday. Williamson has assigned the necessary crew to take films or tests, since November 5, 1973, when he became the manager of the steel department . Prior to that date he had been chief radiographer for 3 years. The usual crew sent on a job consists of two radiographers. The Respondent has three trucks and a trailer. Each truck has a built-in developing darkroom, so that films can be developed at the jobsite whenever feasible. There is also a developing laboratory on the Company's premises for big jobs. The Respondent charges its customers by the hour or by the exposure. If the exposure is too light or too dark in the customer's judgment, the Respondent makes good the work and reshoots the films at the Respondent 's expense. The Respondent also operates other departments includ- ing roofing and waterproofing departments that are sepa- rate and distinct from the steel department and, as such, not involved in this proceeding. C. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Prior to Denton's Discharge liamson said if the Union ever came in the Company would shutdown." Bragg testified to this same incident and stated that Ray Becker, Jim Schwartz, and Denton were also present. Bragg recalled Williamson stating "that the Company would go out of business as far as our side if the Union came in and that they weren't making any money any- way." Williamson denied any such statement. (d) Terry Dakin had been employed by the Company as a full-time employee in January, and received his level one classification in May. Dakin testified that in the middle of July he and trainee Frank E. Lindner drove up to Wright Patterson Air Force Base at Dayton, Ohio, with Wil- liamson, and that Williamson brought up the Union and said "the Company didn't need a union in there." And I asked him why. He said that "the Company lends you money when you needed it and all of that." And I said, "That's true, with the Union in there that we don't have to work long hours and work day and night." And he said "that other people had tried to get the Union in there and that they failed; that Mr. Nutting and Conover would close the shop down if the Union ever came in." (e) In the first part of August Lindner also made a trip to Wright Patterson Air Force Base with Williamson. Lind- ner testified to almost an identical answer made by Wil- liamson in reply to Lindner's question about a union, "that they (Nutting) didn't need a union, and that if they did they would close the doors or fire the person if they found out about it." Williamson denied that any such conversation took place on either trip to the Air Force Base. 2. Lennertz 1. Williamson (a) In early July various employees of Nutting were sit- ting in Williamson's office in the morning awaiting their assignments. Denton testified that "someone brought up the subject of being knocked off after 40 hours and if the Union came in that the Company wouldn't be able to do this. So Mr. Williamson said that if the Union came in there the Company would either close our department or shut the whole company down." On direct examination, Williamson denied that he made any such statement. (b) Also in early July, James Bragg testified about a dis- cussion he had with Williamson in his office. Bragg was not a regular employee of the steel department , as he was a roofing inspector . However, at various times he was as- signed to the steel department to work in their field. Bragg testified that "the subject of the Union came up. And I asked Mr. Williamson did he think a union would ever get in. And he said back to me that the nondestructive testing department would go out of business if the Union was to come in. And he told me I had better watch my step." Williamson denied such conversation. (c) Late in July, a group of radiographers and Bragg were sitting around the shop getting ready to leave at quit- ting time. Denton testified that Williamson stated that the Union was trying to get Nutting's employees run off the union job at Christ Hospital, and that "again Mr. Wil- Respondent's chief engineer, Lennertz, knew trainee Frank Lindner socially, through his son Larry, who was a part-time employee at Nutting. Lennertz had first met Lindner in his home after his son Larry brought him to their house after a golf match, and subsequently at the company picnic. On August 12 or 13, Lindner called Lennertz on the of- fice phone, said he had a problem with Williamson about not getting a raise, and asked for a meeting so that he could talk over this problem with Lennertz. Lennertz invit- ed Lindner to come to his office, but Linder replied that he did not want Williamson to know that he had been talking to Lennertz, and Lindner suggested that they meet in the storage room of the soils laboratory. Lennertz met with Lindner a few minutes thereafter, and Lindner proceeded to discuss the matter of his claimed past-due wage increase, a job offer that he had received from another employer, and what he regarded as an unjust reprimand from Wil- liamson about carrying a newspaper into the plant. Both Lennertz and Lindner's testimony are substantially the same in describing the conversation at this meeting up to this point. Thereafter, their testimony is sharply contra- dictory on the question of who first brought up the ques- tion of the Union. Lennertz testified as follows: He [Lindner] then went on to tell me-Well, he first 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD asked me if I knew that there was discussion of union organization within the steel division of the H. C. Nutting Company . And I told him that I did not know this. He said that this was another matter that con- cerned him relative to his decision as to stay with the Nutting Company or not. I asked why. Why does this concern you? I mean how does this affect you. And he didn't explain to me to my satisfaction just what his reason was he felt that it might affect his employment. Lindner testified that it was Lennertz who first injected the Union into their conference, by Lennertz stating, "Oh, by the way, there is some kind of talk going around or rumors going around that Lloyd Denton and Terry Dakin are trying to get a union in." During the course of the conversation about union orga- nization, Lennertz testified that Lindner mentioned three names to him, Denton , Gunter, and a third name that Len- nertz was unable to recall. 3. Credibility Denton's testimony conflicted at numerous points with Williamson's testimony. I have credited Denton over Wil- liamson, and generally have credited Williamson only as far as his testimony is corroborated elsewhere in the rec- ord. Williamson was so contradictory and evasive in an- swering questions put to him that I am convinced he was tailoring his testimony to fit the Respondent's case. An example of this is found in his relating to the date on which he found out about Denton's union activity. (The record is clear that he learned of union activity from Spieker on August 13 or 14 at the department heads' meeting.) On direct examination he testified that he first knew of union activities "a few days before I let Denton go." On cross- examination he changed his testimony , and testified on two occasions that it was a week or so before Denton's dis- charge . By making the interval a week instead of a few days Williamson was obviously trying to increase the span of time from his knowledge of Denton's union activity to the date of his discharge of Denton. In another incident Williamson admitted playing two games of pool with Bragg at the Airport Inn following a morning job . At first, Williamson claimed it only took "a few minutes," and when pressed on cross -examination changed to "fifteen or twenty minutes." Bragg credibly tes- tified it took about an hour. This time was during working hours, for which Bragg was paid. I have discredited one other witness, Lindner. Lindner's entire attitude to the Respondent was so hostile as to make his testimony untrustworthy. As he expressed his position to Williamson, "You put the screws to me plenty of times and I'm going to put the screws back to you." Denton could not be characterized as a model employee. He was not a well educated or sophisticated person, but he was on the witness stand a sincere, forthright witness. Bragg and Back were responsive, credible witnesses. Also, both men testified against the Respondent while still in his employ, further supporting their credibility. Witnesses were sequestered at the request of the Respon- dent and remained so during the 3-day hearing. 4. Concluding findings Williamson's immediate reply to any questions concern- ing a union coming into the Respondent 's plant was a hos- tile and automatic threat that, if the Union ever came in, the Company would close the steel department down, or the Company would shutdown . No words can put more economic fear in the minds of workers , than an employer's threat to close down that employee's department, or to close the plant down . A recent statement of the Eighth Circuit illustrates the mischief done by such threats: A threat to close the plant, when made in the con- text of the union organization of the employees, has long been recognized as one of the most potent instru- ments of employer interference with the right of em- ployees to organize under the National Labor Rela- tions Act. [Chemvet Laboratories, Inc. v . N.L.R.B., 497 F.2d 445 (1974).] In the light of the entire record and in the context used it is found that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following misconduct: 1. Williamson's threats early in July to Denton and other employees that if the Union came in the Company would either close the steel department or shut the whole Company down. 2. Williamson's threat early in July to Bragg that if the Union came in the nondestructive testing department would go out of business, and also his statement to Bragg that "I had better watch my step." Bragg was in the roofing department, not the NDT department , so Williamson's ad- monition to Bragg to watch his step clearly was a coercive warning that reprisals could befall him in the roofing de- partment for any union activity. 3. Williamson's threat on or about July 25 to employees Bragg, Denton, and Back that if the Union ever came in the Company would shut down. 4. Williamson's threat sometime in July to Dakin while both were riding in an automobile en route to Dayton, Ohio, that Nutting and Conover would close the shop down if the Union ever came in. It is also found that the Respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: 1. Williamson's conversation with Lindner in August while both were riding in an automobile en route to Day- ton, Ohio, as I have not credited Lindner's testimony and there is no substantial credible evidence to establish that there was interrogation in violation of the Act. 2. Lennertz' conversation with Lindner on or about Au- gust 12 about union activities. Lennertz and Lindner both agreed that Lindner sought out the interview as Lindner wanted to talk over some personal problems . The conver- sation was in the nature of a father and son conference, not a business relationship, and there was no element of coer- cion. H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 227 D. Alleged Violation of 8(a)(3) in the Discharge of Denton 1. Denton's employment Denton was first employed by the Respondent in May 1972 as a radiographer trainee. He was instructed by Wil- liamson in the duties of a radiographer both at the plant through manuals, and on the job. He passed two tests given by the Respondent, one of which qualified him to become a level one radiographer, and the second, a level two radi- ographer. He resigned in October 1973 because of his ob- jections to the Company's overtime policy, and was rehired the following week. He again resigned on April 19, and was rehired April 29, at his former classification as a level two radiographer. Denton secured his original job and subse- quent rehirings through the recommendation of Wil- liamson, who was his longtime friend and neighbor. Out of the 11 rank-and-file employees of the steel de- partment of the Respondent in the summer, Denton was 1 of the 2 highest skilled radiographers, being a level two. He also was the most experienced of the radiographers, having worked for the Company since May 1972, except for ap- proximately 2 weeks. Denton testified that Williamson said he was the best radiographer in the NDT department, and the fastest and best man to put on a job. This testimony was not contradicted by Williamson. Williamson did admit that Denton and Rump worked the most overtime because they were the most experienced radiographers. Bragg, who was and still is a roofing department employ- ee of Nutting, but who occasionally was called on by Wil- liamson to perform steel department work, testified credi- bly that Williamson had said to him, "that Lloyd was good and fast" and said that "he was good quite a few times." This testimony was uncontradicted. Back, a radiographer, who had 1-1/2 years' previous ex- perience at Dayton x-ray, and who had had 2 years of medical x-ray training at the University of Cincinnati, tes- tified credibly that, from his observation of Denton, "he was good. He was safe. He did follow safety procedures. He did try to stress quality." This testimony was uncontra- dicted. Based on the testimony and evidence in this case, Den- ton was in fact a competent radiographer level two. 3. Respondent's knowledge of Denton's union activity As previously noted, on either Monday, August 12, or Tuesday, August 13, employee Lindner advised Chief En- gineer Lennertz that three employees including Denton were instrumental in bringing the Union into the steel de- partment. Within an hour after talking with Lindner, Len- nertz states that he reported to General Manager Spieker as follows: As I remember I told him that Lindner told me that solicitation cards were being distributed. The purpose to invite employees to indicate their interest in being represented by a union. And I told Mr. Spieker that Lindner told me of three employees in the NDT divi- sion that had spoken to him, to Frank Lindner on this matter. And I was trying--4 recalled the names of two of these three. And those two names that I recalled were a man named Denton and a man named Gunter. [Emphasis supplied.] On the morning following the Lennertz-Lindner confer- ence, and Lennertz' report to Spieker, the department heads held their regular meeting with General Manager Spieker. Spieker testified about this meeting as follows: Each morning all department heads meet with me. Williamson came in to discuss the work schedule, any problems in the department, whether he had sufficient personnel, any problems from the previous days that have to be worked on. And during this meeting I told him that I had heard a rumor that there was union organizational activity going on in his department. And I told him that the rumor has it that Gunter and Denton (emphasis supplied) and someone else was in- volved. And Mr. Williamson said that he didn't, he didn't believe it. And he studied a little bit and he kind of laughed. And he said, "No, sir, I don't believe it." At that point I didn't comment any further. Although Respondent vigorously contends that it had no knowledge of Denton's union activities before his dis- charge, I find on the basis of the above, and the record as a whole, that management of Respondent clearly knew that Denton was the leader, or one of the leaders, in the union organizational movement prior to Denton's dis- charge. 2. Denton's union activities In the latter part of June, Denton contacted the union office, talked to Union Agent Brockman and secured union authorization cards . He kept these cards in the glove compartment of his personal truck, which he frequently parked opposite the plant of the Respondent . In July Den- ton gave a union card to radiographers Terry Dakin and David Back, to Roofing Inspector James Bragg; and in the middle of July, together with radiographer J. Gunter, Den- ton, asked trainee Frank E. Lindner to sign a union card. Denton was the key employee if not the only employee in the union organization campaign. The campaign was a low pitched one, done without fanfare and without any hand- bills, bulletins, or insignia being distributed on behalf of the Union. 4. Denton's discharge On August 15, Denton reported for work in the morning, and was told by Williamson to perform a magnetic particle probe inspection test at the Cincinnati Coliseum on the welding of two girders.' Denton returned to the plant on or about 11:15 a.m. Between 12 noon and 1 p.m. Williamson called him into his office and fired him on the spot. When asked by Respondent's counsel what he said to Denton, 2 There was contradictory testimony by Denton and Williamson on the working condition of the magnetic particle probe, on the merits of DC and AC current, and on what instructions Williamson gave Denton There is no need to resolve this conflict as at no time has the Respondent claimed that Denton's conduct on August 15 played any part in his being discharged that day. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Williamson testified: Denton was down to the Coliseum. And he came in. And it was around I think one o'clock or something in the afternoon. Anyway when he comes in I told him to make out his reports, which he did. And I said, "Lloyd, I've gone back over all of this bad work. You'- ve been doing this bad work. And we have decided to let you go." And I don't [think] he heard me. He didn't say nothing the first time. And then I told him, I said, "This -bad work and you're doing it and it has been piling up. And we're getting behind." And I said ... And he said, "Well, are they going to lay me off?" And I said, "They're going to fire you ... Denton proceeded to turn in his keys and walked out to the company parking lot. Williamson met him on the park- ing lot and then suggested to Denton, "Let's go across the street and drink a beer." The two proceeded to the Airport Inn where four to six rounds of drinks were alternately bought by each party. Denton testified that the first thing Williamson asked him was, "who the men were that were involved in the Union activities in his department." Den- ton gave him the name of Rump who he believed "was the man that told the Company about the Union." Denton testified that thereafter Williamson "kept asking questions about who had signed and all of this, and if the Union was going to be able to get me a job somewhere else . . . and [the Company] had been good to you and you pull a nasty stunt like this and that was- about the end of it, of the conversation then." Williamson testified that he had not asked Denton how many employees had signed up, or who they were. He did admit, however, that Denton described to him how he kept union information in the glove compartment of his truck on the street for employees to pick up, and that Denton said, "I didn't do anything on the job. I made sure that I didn't give them any reason to fire me." 5. Denton's alleged unsatisfactory work record From the outset, the basis of the Respondent's reason for discharging Denton was asserted to be for the poor quality of his work. On the day of discharge Williamson told Denton it was for poor work at Stacey's. On August 30, Assistant General Manager Spieker answered an inqui- ry from the Board's Region 9 office (G.C. Exh. 5), as to the reasons for Denton's discharge, and cited poor quality of work done by Denton on April 8 and 9 at Stacey's, May 13 at New Richmond Water Tank, August 1 at Brighton, Au- gust 9 at Stacey, and August 12 at Oberle-Jordre. However, at the hearing, the Respondent submitted a significantly different list of dates and jobs on which it claimed Denton had done poor work. Respondent's Exhib- it 11, captioned "MAKE coon 4/28/74 through 8/15/74," sets forth the following dates and jobs which are reviewed below in detail. a. New Richmond Water Tank-5/13/74 water tank, using A film. When the films were developed, they were defective, as M film had been used. Dakin testi- fied that he had been on the job and had inserted the wrong film in the camera. However, the Respondent pro- duced a handwritten report of wages and expenses, signed by Dakin showing that Dakin worked at a different place from the New Richmond Water Tank on May 13, 1974. The Company report showed that Dakin worked there on May 17, 1974. Based on the record I do find that the film was spoiled on May 13 and, since Denton was the radiographer in charge, he was at fault. However, the manning of this job shows that the Respondent rated Denton as its number one working radiographer, as it placed Denton over Rump, the other level two technician. b. Hughes-Bechtol-6/17/74 Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 20 lost hours on June 17 for work done at Wright Patterson Field, Dayton. Howev- er, the record is extremely abbreviated as to what hap- pened at the Hughes-Bechtol job, and the date is unascer- tainable from the testimony. The only related testimony by Williamson was that "Denton lost some films that we had up there. And that is what some of the lost time is." C. Hughes-Bechtol-7/9/74 Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 8 lost hours on July 9. No testimony was offered by the Respondent as to what went wrong at Hughes-Bechtol other than the claim of lost film set forth under the June 17 listing above. However, Williamson admitted that other employees had problems with this customer. When asked how many other employees had problems with Hughes-Bechtol, Wil- liamson admitted that, "David Back had problems. Allen Sellers had problems." In fact, Respondent's Exhibit 11 lists 40 lost hours by Back at Hughes-Bechtol in July, and 27 hours lost by Sell- ers at the same company. I do not find sufficient evidence to hold Denton liable for the claimed lost hours on June 17 and July 9.3 d. Brighton Corporation-811174 The Brighton Corporation was a fabricator of thick steel heads for water tanks. It had its own radiographer and darkroom and used the Respondent for its overload work. Denton had shot work there before, including March 29, April 3 and 16, and May 3 and 11. On August 1, Williamson assigned Denton and Back to go to Brighton to take 4 shots of some thick cylinders, a total of 16 films. Denton and Back did not complete the job that day as expected by Williamson. Denton testified that he was developing the film in the darkroom of the truck and as he turned around he bumped the door in the darkroom causing the film to be partially exposed. Williamson dispatched Denton, level two radiographer, p epo e er ug es- Rump, and level one, Sellers to shoot some welds on a chtol fob in the letter Spieker sent to the Regional Office on August 30. Sit should be noted that Res ondent did not r rt ith H h Be- H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 229 The next morning, August 2, at Denton's telephone re- quest, Williamson sent a company truck to Brighton, and Williamson also came to the job. Back was developing the films in the truck's darkroom, when Williamson entered. Williamson was of the opinion that the films were too dark, but he sent them over to Brighton to see if they would accept them. Brighton refused, because they were too dark, and the Respondent had to reshoot them the next day. The chief radiographer of Brighton, Robert E. Kolbin- sky, testified that he had looked at the films and they were too dark. He attributed the darkness to the film being shot for too long a period of time. Kolbinsky stated that this was the only instance he could remember where he rejected film shot by Denton. He estimated that Denton had been at Brighton's 6 to 10 times that he knew of . Denton was responsible for this poor work. e. Stacey Manufacturing Company-8/9/74 Stacey manufactures high pressure tanks and had been a customer of the Respondent since March. Stacey employs a full-time chief inspector of merchandise, Harold Wayne Whitlock. On the evening of August 6, 1974, Williamson sent radi- ographers Back and Rump to shoot a big tank. On August 7 Whitlock telephoned Williamson complaining that the films developed by Back were too dark. Williamson there- upon sent Denton and Gunter to Stacey on the evenings of August 7, 8, and 9 to shoot this large tank, removing Back from this assignment. On the evening of August 9, in preparing his truck to go to Stacey's, Denton found that his source, an essential part of his equipment, was missing. An investigation disclosed that Back had the source on another job, and Denton had to wait until about midnight for Back to bring back this source to the Respondent's shop. After Back returned, Denton left for Stacey's. When he arrived at the jobsite Denton realized he had forgotten the list of shots he was supposed to make. Denton did not return to the Employer's shop to get the list, but chose to work the rest of the night with Dakin, who was working at Stacey's on a one-man assignment. This loss of time from midnight on was Denton's error, but obviously not an error involving the quality of his x-rays. Whitlock, who has worked for Stacey's since January 1974, testified on behalf of the Respondent as to the qual- ity of work done by the Respondent's radiographers at Stacey's. Whitlock testified that in the first 2 weeks of Au- gust he was dissatisfied with the quality of the radiographs done by the Respondent, that they were too dark, and in some cases were not marked properly . He then went on to testify that he had telephoned Williamson and told him not to send Denton to the plant anymore. He was unable to fix the date, stating, "I would say in the month of August." He stated that he named Denton because his name was signed on the "sheet, radiograph" that was left at Stacey's by the radiographer in charge. On cross-examination by the General Counsel, Whitlock admitted that he could not recall any instance in which he had ever talked to Denton, that he did not see the Nutting radiographers perform their work, and did not go over their reports with them. During the course of Whitlock's testimony, General Counsel had Dakin enter the hearing room and stand be- fore the Inspector: Q. (By Mr. Homer) Do you recall talking to this gentleman about his work that was performed at Stacey's? A. (Whitlock) Yeah. I think I saw Terry in the plant on Saturday morning. Q. And did you talk to Mr. Dakin? A. I can't recall any conversation. I did talk to the boy at the time, yes. Q. Was this in August of 1974? A. It seems like it would be about that time. Q. Did you not discuss Mr. Dakin's work and what you felt was the poor quality of work? A. I think I made a comment to him that his work was not as good as it should be. I'm not sure. When Dakin was recalled by the counsel for the General Counsel on rebuttal he credibly testified that Williamson reprimanded him two or three times about complaints from Stacey's about his work, and that Williamson told him he had received a call from Mr. Whitlock, and Whit- lock said, "not to send me back over there any more." Although Williamson testified on the second day of the hearing that Stacey's had only requested that Denton be kept off their job, on the third day of the hearing on being recalled for redirect examination, he admitted that Stacey officials had also requested him to remove Dakin from their work. Under cross-examination Williamson also ad- mitted that he had reprimanded Dakin for not stenciling at Stacey's. Denton testified emphatically that Williamson never told him that he could not go back to Stacey's. The record is crystal clear that Williamson sent Denton to Stacey's on August 7, 8, and 9. Also, the record is clear that Denton was not accused by Stacey, or anyone else, that Denton performed poor quality work on August 9. The Respondent's complaint against Denton for August 9 is that he forgot to take with him a list of the shots to be taken. I do find that Stacey's chief inspector asked Williamson to keep Dakin off their job, not Denton, thus as (a) Whit- lock admitted that he spoke to Dakin and criticized his work, but never spoke to Denton; (b) Dakin admitted that Whitlock had complained to him about his work; (c) Da- kin admitted that Williamson told him that he could not send him back to Stacey's because he had received so many complaints about his work; (d) Williamson con- firmed this testimony of Dakin's; (e) and the record shows conclusively that Denton had been sent by Williamson to Stacey's practically up to the date of his discharge. f. Oberlie-Jordre-8/12 /74 This customer was building a power plant at Miami Fort. On Friday evening, August 9, Williamson had sent radiographers Back and Weber to shoot three welds. Back shot two welds and after reviewing his films found them to 230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be too light. Back reported this problem to Williamson. On the following Monday afternoon, August 12, Williamson sent Denton with Back to go to Miami Fort to complete the job. After shooting some welds, upon reviewing the films Denton also found them too light. Denton and Wil- liamson both testified that Williamson told Denton to go over to the nearby Power Piping's darkroom trailer and as Williamson testified, "See the night superintendent there and get the keys and develop it in their trailer." Denton testified that he replied to Williamson as follows: "I ex- plained to Mr. Williamson that the people had done left." Back, who was present when Denton called Williamson confirmed Denton's testimony, stating, "Well, like I say, as I remember, I remember hearing Lloyd tell Mr. Williams that the man from the other x-ray company had left the area." Williamson denied that Denton had told him this. I credit Denton because of Back's forthright corroboration. Williamson testified that he gave no further instructions to Denton. However, Denton and Back testified that Wil- liamson then instructed them to load six films in each ca- sette and take the shots. The films were shot, and the next morning Back ran them and again they were too light, just as had been the films taken by Back and Weber on August 9. However, it is noted that the Respondent did not charge Back and/or Weber for any lost hours for the too-light films taken by Back on August 9. Yet, on Respondent's Exhibit 11, the Company charged Denton with 12 lost hours for his too-light films taken on August 12. This is a classic example of disparate treatment by an employer. According to Williamson's testimony, the final event that triggered Denton's discharge was Williamson's belief that Denton had cheated in turning in 2 extra hours of work. Williamson described his August 15 meeting with Spieker as follows: I said all of this bad work that he's had. And I said, Last night I found out that he turned in ten hours and he only worked eight or eight hours and he only worked six. And this is dust last night. I said, That's going too far. There's no hope for him. It's been minor things that we've had against him. It's things that actu- ally I thought could have been overcome. And it's the end of the line. Williamson had assigned Denton and Lindner to a job in Dayton on August 13. Denton testified that when he got back in the evening he added one half hour to his time. He claimed that this was a company approved procedure on late jobs. However, Williamson claimed that Denton added 2 ex- tra hours. It should be noted that the Respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to support Williamson's claim of 2 extra hours. The Respondent did produce Denton's Report of Wages and Expenses for the week of June 17, and did produce Lindner's similar report for the week of August 12, and Dakin's similar report for the week of May 5. The Respondent's failure to produce Denton's Report of Wages for this week of August 12 rais- es the inference that the evidence contained in that report would have been adverse to the Respondent' s case, and would have shown one-half hour, not 2 hours.' I do find that Denton added one-half hour to his time for the work done in Dayton, not 2 hours. 6. Concluding findings re Denton's discharge It is well established that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent, without running afoul of the Act, provided he is not motivated by unlawful considerations. The existence of justifiable grounds for dismissal is no defense if the motivation for the discharge was in part because of the employees' participa- tion in protected activities. With these established princi- ples in mind and recognizing that the burden of proof to show the illegality of the discharge rests with the General Counsel, we now analyze Denton's discharge. In support of the General Counsel' s case, we have the most experienced, competent radiographer employed by the Respondent fired precipitately, without warning, the first or second day after Williamson learned that Denton is the leader of the union organizing campaign. The record is clear that Denton was the Respondent's leading rank-and-file radiographer. Back and Bragg both testified that Williamson had repeatedly praised Denton's ability and speed as a radiographer. This was never contra- dicted by Williamson. In addition to the verbal support of Back and Bragg, we have what Williamson actually did in making assignments to jobs. The crew of radiographers dispatched by Wil- liamson to the New Richmond Water Tank job consisted of Denton, Rump, and Sellers. Rump was also a level two radiographer, yet Williamson made Denton the radiogra- pher in charge, and when there was defective work on the job, charged Denton with the "MAKE GOOD" hours. On the Stacey job, Williamson had sent Rump and Back on Au- gust 6 to shoot a big tank. On August 7, when Whitlock telephoned to complain that the films were too dark, Wil- liamson turned to his top technician and sent Denton with Gunter to straighten out the job. On the Oberle-Jordre job at Miami Fort, Williamson dispatched Back and Weber, on August 9, to shoot three welds. Back found them too light and reported this problem to Williamson. So, on the following workday, Williamson sent Denton with Back to solve the problem and complete this job. Denton had quit his job in 1973 and 1974, and each time had been immediately rehired when he applied to return. Denton was assigned to the highest amount of overtime hours, together with Rump, by Williamson's own orders. However, in the latter part of June, Denton contacted the Union, secured union authorization cards, and started securing signatures . The campaign was carried on sub rosa. There is no direct evidence that Williamson knew of the union campaign or knew that Denton was the spearhead at that time. However, starting in July, whenever the question of a union would be brought up to or by Williamson, his answer would be harsh and clear, that if the Union came in the Company would close the steel department down, or shut the whole Company down. The Respondent in his brief states correctly that in an Wigmore, Evidence, § 1017 (3 ed. 1940). H. C. NUTTING COMPANY 231 8(a)(3) case an employer must first have knowledge that the employee was engaging in some activity protected by the Act. Then the Respondent flatly asserts, "Respondent had no knowledge that Denton was engaged in protected activities at the time of his termination." This is completely inaccurate. It is clear that the General Counsel met the test of estab- lishing knowledge by the employer, prior to Denton's dis- charge. While I do not credit Lindner's version of what was said at his meeting with Lennertz on August 12 or 13, I do credit Lennertz' testimony. Respondent's brief character- izes Lennertz' conversation with Lindner as a slim reed for the General Counsel to rely on for the first, most vital part of his case, knowledge of union activity. To the contrary, it was not a slim one, but a very strong one. There is no doubt that there was a meeting between Lindner and Lennertz, either on August 12 or 13. I believe Lennertz' testimony that Lindner brought up the question of the Union and Denton's name. But this makes no differ- ence in assessing what was done by Vice President Len- nertz after he received the information about union activi- ties. Lennertz testified that following this conversation he went almost immediately to Spieker's office. Certainly Len- nertz did not go to the office of the general manager to tell him of a trainee's petty complaints. Lennertz went to tell him that there was union organization in the NDT divi- sion, that solicitation cards were being distributed, and that three employees in the NDT division, Denton, Gunter, and one other whose name he could not recall, were passing out the authorization cards. The chain of this knowledge passing to Williamson is clear and absolute. The very next morning, August 13, or 14, at the regular daily meeting of the department heads, Spieker testified on cross-examination that he told Wil- liamson that "I had heard a rumor that there was organiza- tional activity going on in his department. And I told him that the rumor has it that Gunter and Denton and someone else was involved." Why Spieker would characterize Len- nertz' statement to him as a rumor is unknown, as it was no rumor. Lindner had told Lennertz about the union activi- ty as a fact, and Lennertz had passed it on to Spieker as a fact, and had not watered it down to a rumor. So, in any event, the Respondent, through the supervisory chain of Lennertz, Spieker, and Williamson, knew of Denton's union activity at the time of his termination, 1 or 2 days later. It is true that Williamson told Spieker "he didn't believe it," but in the context Williamson expressed this disbelief it was that of a friend who had been betrayed. After all, he and Denton had been friends and neighbors. Williamson had gotten him his job, had trained him, and had gotten him his job back after quitting twice. Williamson was stun- ned by such ingratitude, and expressed this feeling of be- trayal to Denton in the Airport Inn on the afternoon of the discharge, when he told Denton that "the Company had been good to you and you pull a nasty stunt like this." Respondent denies that the discharge of Denton was an unfair labor practice, and argues that the discharge was attributable basically to the poor quality of work done by Denton on a variety of jobs. It would furnish no useful purpose to re-review these jobs at this time. Suffice to say, that the Respondent furnished two substantially different lists of jobs that contained alleged poor work , one list being submitted to Region 9 on August 30, and one sub- mitted at the hearing, having been prepared about January 14, 1974. It must be noted that radiography is not an exact sci- ence. The customer is absolute king . If he says the films are too light, the Respondent simply takes his word and does the films over. Conversely, if a customer says they are too dark, no argument is made, and the films are done over. But even with this subjective system , Denton was recog- nized by Williamson's assignments as his best radiogra- pher. Even though dozens of paves of testimony were given on the status of the "MAKE GOOD' jobs on Respondent's Exhibit 11, as well as many pages in the brief, there is no way to make these incidents into major mistakes . Williamson termed these "minor things" when he went to see Spieker on August 15, and they were minor things . As each oc- curred no warning notice of dismissal was given to Denton. No list of these incidents was made by Williamson until 5 months after Denton's discharge. At the hearing the Respondent sought to shore up its reasons for justifying the termination of Denton by adduc- ing testimony from Williamson about a day in June when Denton called in sick. It was Williamson's belief that Den- ton had gone fishing . Denton testified that he had trouble with his legs and stayed home that day. The determination of this question is not important to this case . What is im- portant is that the Respondent thought it necessary to but- tress its reasons for discharging Denton by this vague, mi- nor incident. The General Counsel at the hearing and in his brief as- serts that the Respondent was in no way concerned with the quality of the work of its employees. In support thereof the General Counsel introduced testimony in the use of tests other than x-rays performed by Nutting employees. Bragg testified that he was sent on a job at Crawford Steel by Williamson to make a magnetic particle probe in some steel beams. Bragg was a roofing inspector and from the roofing department, not the steel department . Bragg testi- fied that he was not qualified in the use of the probe, that he did not know what he was doing, and did not know how to interpret the test. Williamson admitted that before em- ployees were sent out on such jobs the Company normally required that they pass two tests. However, in Bragg's case, Williamson weakly claimed a state inspector was present to interpret the test. Bragg testified that this unqualified state inspector just watched the test for about an hour and then left, with Bragg continuing to use the probe for a couple more hours. Lindner, the other half of the probe team, had only been with the Company several weeks and had no knowledge of the instrument. Another service offered by the Respondent to customers was a dye penetrant test applied to steel welds so as to show surface cracks. In the summer of 1974 Williamson assigned Back and Dakin to conduct a dye penetrant test on a pipeline job in Kentucky. Back told Williamson that he was not qualified and had not taken the two tests estab- lished by the Respondent to qualify a person for perform- ing a dye penetrant test. Back testified that Williamson 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told him, "Go out there and do the job and just try to get by." Back did go out to the pipeline and performed the tests by the slipshod method of reading the directions on the can containing the dye penetrant. Unlike the General Counsel , I do not find that Respon- dent was in no way concerned with the quality of work of its employees. However, by sending out unqualified mag- netic particle probe operators and unqualified dye pene- trant operators, and by assigning Denton as a waterproof- ing inspector on a nuclear power plant , when he had had no experience in waterproofing, shows that the Company does not demand quality performance by its employees on all jobs that it undertakes. The Respondent had advanced no credible reasons for the discharge of Denton . By Williamson's own words his complaints about Denton's work were for "minor things." Yet suddenly and without warning the union leader in the organizational campaign is fired. Hence it is clear that the real motive of the Respondent in Denton's discharge was to utilize his discharge for the stamping out of employee affection for the Union. On the day of discharge, Williamson characterized Denton's discharge as for "minor things" This is not to say that the Respondent could not have discharged Denton for any or all of those minor things listed on Employer's Ex- hibit 11, prior to the Employer's receiving knowledge of Denton's union activities and its concomitant desire to rid itself of the union spearhead. However, the fact that the Employer chose not to discipline Denton for any of his alleged misdeeds from May to August is a guidepost that the Employer really did consider the incidents minor things not calling for any discipline, much less discharge. On all of the evidence of record I find that Denton was discharged on August 15 because of his union activities; that the stated reasons of poor quality of work, and/or cheating on his time by adding 2 hours, was a pretext to conceal the antiunion motivation for his discharge . Singer Company v. N.L.R.B., 429 F.2d 172, 179 (C.A. 8, 1970); A. P. Green Fire Brick Company v. N. L. R. B., 326 F.2d 910, 916 (C.A. 8, 1964). I also find that Williamson's interrogation of Denton at the Airport Inn on August 15, about other employees' union activities , violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Having just fired Denton, it is incongruous that Williamson invited him to have a beer in the middle of a workday. Williamson wanted Denton to reveal to him the names of the union proponents so that the Company could scotch the union campaign. No other reason for such interrogation is plausi- ble. tioning me about my union activities again and asked who had signed the Union cards . And I didn't answer him." Denton further testified that Williamson said to him, "If you can get five men to sign union cards I'll kiss your ass on Fountain Square." When Denton told Williamson he already had five signed union cards, Williamson replied that "if we find out who they are, they won't have their jobs long." Williamson admitted that he had been in the V.F.W. hall that evening, but claimed he was only there for a few min- utes. He denied talking about the Union. "I did not discuss the Union . He talked some. But I did not discuss. I did not ask any questions." Williamson stated that while Denton was telling him about the Union, "I was just laughing at it." Shortly after Denton and Brown joined Williamson at the bar, Mrs. Thelma Stevens came in and sat down with the three men, as she had originally been with Brown. She had known Denton and Williamson for a long period of time. She was a credible witness. She testified that the first thing she heard was "Mr. Denton tried to get Mr. Wil- liamson to admit that he was the one who fired him for union activities, but that Williamson responded that `he had had orders from higher up to fire him for not doing satisfactory work."' Stevens corroborated Denton's testi- mony as follows: A. All right. And so then he went on and he said, "If you get five people to sign union cards I will bare my tail down on Fifth Street." And Lloyd laughed at him and he said-That's Mr. Denton. I'm sorry, sir. He said, "Well, Fifth wouldn't be good enough be- cause I've already got five people signed." And Mr. Williamson tried to find out who they were and Mr. Denton wouldn't tell him the names . And Mr. Wil- liamson said, "If we find out who they are, who signed the cards they will be let go." So they proceeded to sit and talk back and forth pretty loud. And Mr. Wil- liamson said to Mr. Denton, "I thought you consid- ered me a friend. If you'll drop all charges I'll have your job back with Nutting within a week. If not I'll get you a job some place else." And Mr. Denton said, "If you are talking about Stacey's forget it." And Mr. Williamson said, "Lloyd, I've got connections. And I think I can look around and find you a job with some- body else besides Stacey's ." And so they went on. And they talked about different things . Then Mr. Wil- liamson kept referring back to trying to get Mr. Den- ton to tell who had signed cards . And Mr. Denton kept laughing and telling him he wouldn 't tell him. E. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violation After Denton's Discharge On the evening of September 10 or 11, Denton was in the Willowville V.F.W. Post playing pool with his friend Roscoe Brown. Although Denton had been discharged by the Respondent, he was still an employee because his work had ceased as a consequence of the Respondent's unfair labor practice. Williamson walked in , went to the bar, and sat down. After the game of pool, Denton and Brown went up to the bar and sat down, with Denton sitting next to Williamson. Denton testified : "Williamson started ques- Mrs. Stevens described Denton's and Williamson's conversation as loud , argumentative, and mad . Both par- ties had three rounds of alcoholic beverages while she was present, whereas she was drinking Pepsi-Cola. It is found that Williamson's interrogation of Denton on September 10 or I1 in the V.F.W. Post about other em- ployees' union activities, and also by his threatening that the Respondent would discharge employees who signed union cards, was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. H. C. NUTTING COMPANY IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The H. C. Nutting Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a la- bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees concerning union activities; by threatening employees with closure of its steel department and/or the Company, and discharge of employees for engaging in union activities, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Arthur Lloyd Denton, on August 15, 1974, Respondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization, and is thereby committing unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac- tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as provided in the recommended Order below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, in accordance with usual Board practice in such cases. It having been found that Arthur Lloyd Denton was un- lawfully discharged on August 15, 1974, it will be recom- mended that Respondent be ordered to offer him immedi- ate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. It will be further recommended that Respondent be ordered to reimburse him for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of its discriminating action against him, in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293 (1950), together with 6 percent interest there- on, in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). It will be further recommended that Respondent be re- quired to post the notice referred to in the Order herein below in its Cincinnati, Ohio, facility. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS 233 Respondent, The H. C. Nutting Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: : (a) Discharging its employees or otherwise discriminat- ing in any manner with respect to their tenure of employ- ment, or any term or condition of employment, because they have engaged in concerted activity or activity in be- half of Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Unlawfully interrogating employees regarding their union activities or the union activities of their fellow em- ployees. (c) Threatening employees with reprisals for engaging in union activities. (d) Threatening employees with discharge for engaging in union activities. (e) Threatening to close the steel department if the em- ployees chose to be represented by a union. (f) Threatening to shut the Company down if the em- ployees chose to be represented by a union. (g) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Arthur Lloyd Denton immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or if his job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of his discriminatory discharge, in the manner set forth in the section herein above entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other records containing information concerning its backpay obligation under this recommended Order. (c) Post at its facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 9, after being duly signed by an authorized represen- tative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 6 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading, "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read, "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those found in this Decision. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a hearing that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, has ordered us to post this notice, and we hereby notify you that: The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting Local Union No. 415, Industrial, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union ac- tivities or attitudes or the union activities or attitudes of others. WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals for engag- ing in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge for engag- ing in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to close down any department or the Company if you elect to be represented by a union. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with any of your rights set forth above. WE WILL offer Arthur Lloyd Denton full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if the job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make him whole for any lost earnings, plus 6-percent interest. THE H . C. NUTTING COMPANY